Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Financial instrument

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Dear Eric,

Again thank you for instructing me in the fact that what non-qualified 
applicants do is out of scope.  I truly appreciate this constant reminder, 
because, obviously, otherwise I might just forget.

I asserted my opinion, but according to my beliefs of hI should behave as a 
co-chair, I do not think I should argue the topic - as you know from other 
conversations we have been part of in other groups, while I believe it is ok 
for co-chair to asset an opinion, I do not believe they should get involved in 
arguing for positions..  Take my opinion or ignore it, it is not my opinion 
that counts but the opinion of the group at large.  For me to argue a position 
on this would not only be appropriate (in my personal view), but would require 
me to discuss the actions and contributions of those who are non-qualified 
applicants.  And as you have reminded me, that is out of scope.  Also as you 
will notice in my attempt to document this in the draft 12.2, I did not include 
any mention of my opinion of what was required for a shared risk group to be 
capable of covering risk.  So it is a moot point.

I hope my English was sufficiently understandable.  I apologize if other things 
I have written have used language you did not understand.

a.




On 2 Oct 2010, at 17:14, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:

> Avri,
> 
> What non-qualified applicants do is out of scope.
> 
> Can you explain this:
> 
> "A shared risk group that only has needy applicants in it, is less likely to 
> have the ability to cover the risk, than one that has various kinds of 
> applicant."
> 
> Please use words I can understand, like the staff skills necessary to create 
> the contractually obligated reports during periods of continuity operations, 
> and the associated cost, and the operational staff and facilities necessary 
> to operate during periods of continuity operations, and the associated cost.
> 
> Barring force majeure or economic contraction on a scale sufficient to affect 
> two or more qualified operations simultaneously, for any group of N risk 
> pooling applicants, as subsequent cooperating operators, the transition into 
> (and possibly out of) continuity operations is mutually independent.
> 
> Please explain why N qualified applicants forming a shared risk group are 
> "more likely to have the ability to cover the risk" if one non-qualified 
> applicant joins the shared risk group?
> 
> Eric